[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Page 577]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     SIXTH ANNIVERSARY OF SUPREME COURT'S CITIZENS UNITED DECISION

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today marks the 6-year anniversary of the 
Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election 
Commission. In this far-reaching opinion, on a divided 5-4 vote, the 
Court struck down years of precedent and held that the First Amendment 
permitted corporations to spend freely from their treasuries to 
influence elections.
  As a result of Citizens United and the series of decisions that 
followed in its wake, special interests and wealthy, well-connected 
campaign donors have so far poured more than $2 billion into recent 
Federal elections, including 2016 races. About half of the total 
outside spending since Citizens United went toward the 2012 
Presidential election. More than 93 percent of all Super PAC donations 
in 2012 came in contributions of at least $10,000 from only 3,318 
donors, who make up 0.0011 percent of the U.S. population. Of that 
group, an elite class of 159 people each contributed at least $1 
million--which was nearly 60 percent of all Super PAC donations that 
year.
  In the lead-up to the 2016 Presidential primaries, we are once again 
witnessing an immense amount of spending. A New York Times 
investigation in October found that of approximately 120 million 
households in the United States, a mere 158 families, along with 
businesses they own or control, had already contributed $176 million--
nearly half of all funds raised to support the 2016 Presidential 
campaigns before a single primary vote has been cast.
  Congressional races have been similarly flooded with outside 
spending. For example, in the 2014 midterm elections, outside groups 
spent more than $560 million to influence congressional races--eight 
times the approximately $70 million spent in 2006, the last midterm 
election cycle before Citizens United. And more than 30 percent of that 
spending came from tax-exempt, ``dark money'' groups that conceal their 
donors from the public.
  The impact of this incredible spending stretches from races for the 
White House and Congress to Governors' mansions, State capitols, and 
city halls throughout the country. As in Federal campaigns, Citizens 
United has led to an explosion of outside spending at the State and 
local levels, with corporations and wealthy single spenders looking to 
play kingmaker, pouring cash into races for positions ranging from 
district attorney to school board members. One of the most startling 
examples occurred in 2014 in Richmond, CA, a city with a population of 
107,000. Chevron--an energy company with more than $200 billion in 
annual revenue--spent approximately $3 million through campaign 
committees aimed at influencing the mayoral and city council races. 
That means Chevron spent at least $33 per voting-age resident in 
Richmond.
  The long-term damage to our political process from Citizens United is 
just beginning to reveal itself. Some scandals have already surfaced, 
and there will undoubtedly be more stories of corruption and corrosive 
influence ahead, further eroding public confidence in our government. I 
have worked with my colleagues on a number of solutions to stem this 
tidal wave of secret unlimited spending, including improving disclosure 
and creating a more transparent campaign finance system. I will 
continue my efforts to establish a public financing system for 
congressional elections through the Fair Elections Now Act, which I 
reintroduced last year.
  We also must continue to push for a constitutional amendment that 
would protect and restore the First Amendment by overturning Citizens 
United and empowering Congress and State legislatures to set 
reasonable, content neutral limitations on campaign spending. In 2014, 
Justice John Paul Stevens discussed his support for an amendment to 
overturn Citizens United in testimony before the Senate Rules 
Committee. Here is what he said: ``Unlimited campaign expenditures 
impair the process of democratic self-government. They create a risk 
that successful candidates will pay more attention to the interests of 
non-voters who provided them with money than to the interests of the 
voters who elected them. That risk is unacceptable.''
  As we approach the sixth anniversary of the Citizens United decision, 
we should heed Justice Stevens's words. It is unacceptable for 
politicians to feel more beholden to wealthy donors than their 
constituents. We must work to fix America's campaign finance system and 
overturn Citizens United so that elected officials listen to the 
everyday Americans who voted them into office--not just those who 
bankrolled their success.
  (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)

                          ____________________